I’m Voting this Year, for the Second Time in My Life. Gary Johnson Is the Reason

Do you remember when you were first eligible to vote? An adult, a citizen, at last! Finally the power to exercise influence over public affairs in the most direct way. So I voted. Then the returns came in. My guy won anyway, overwhelmingly. I didn’t feel vindicated. I immediately realized that my vote meant nothing. I wasted my time.

I felt like a chump, and never voted again. I’ve never had a reason. I watch politics like a spectator sport, just to see what happens.

To be sure, I never bought the claim that my non-voting was unpatriotic. I still have the right to complain about the results, same as with any condition of captivity. Nor do I think I have some moral obligation to participate. For me, it’s a practical issue. I have better things to do. I also don’t like the way democracy fools people into believing that whatever happens in government is their own fault.

Neither have I accepted the argument that voting is somehow immoral – a point you often hear made in libertarian circles. If a thief asks for my opinion about whether he should rob me, and I offer it, that doesn’t make me complicit in the theft. I’m not morally compromised because I made some effort to change the outcome.

A Rare Opportunity

This year is different. It’s the first time in my lifetime that my vote can count for something in the general election. Through my own action on that one day, I can add slightly, just slightly, to changing the culture of politics in this country. It’s only one vote but it actually does make a difference. Vote totals, whether we like it or not, are widely seen as a measure of public opinion. Maximizing the number of people who pulled the lever for something completely different is one small way to make a statement.

Plus, there is really no serious opportunity cost to voting Libertarian this year. It’s a toss up which of the likely winners of this presidential election would be worse for freedom. I keep going back and forth on the question, but it is nearly certain that either Clinton or Trump will win. I have no dog in the main fight.

Meanwhile, the ticket of Gary Johnson and William Weld is polling higher than any third-party ticket in a quarter of a century. The last time this happened, it was the Ross Perot campaign. I recall supporting him as a disrupter but there were no strong libertarian grounds for this. He ran as a competent manager and that’s about it.

Meanwhile, Johnson/Weld have been out working hard on the campaign trail. Every day, all day, they are making the case for freedom, cutting government, ending overpolicing, bringing peace to foreign affairs and immigration. If you listen to them, and try to listen from the point of a view of regular person as opposed to an educated libertarian ideologue, they have actually managed to make the case for liberty make sense.

The polls show that they are drawing equally from Republicans and Democrats. They are the favorite among active-duty military. They are the favorites among millennials, which makes sense because they are the only candidates who seem to be in touch with current realities (whereas Clinton and Trump seem like leftovers from a bygone era). They are appealing to a diverse group: men and women, whites and blacks, Latinos and Asians. The ticket is helping to shed the impression that libertarianism is only for rich white men, and refute the preposterous claim of the alt-right that only white people love liberty.

I’ve seen this in real life at rallies. They are growing each day and much larger than what the media reports. And I’ve been so impressed at the quality and diversity of the people supporting this ticket. The ethos is hopeful, cheerful, constructive, and civilized. Love for liberty more than hate for something else is what you feel from the campaign. This ticket is attracting a wonderful demographic to the cause of liberty. If you are feeling down about our prospects for the future, these are wonderful events to attend.

Why the success? I think it has something to do with the ebullient tone and practical approach of the campaign. The ads have been beautiful and sophisticated, and tapped into ideals. There have been flubs on the campaign trail, but the overwhelming spirit has been liberal in the classical sense. The core of the message has been: leave people alone to live their lives in peace with others. This is a message that resonates widely.

Competent Candidates

One way to think of voting a form of hiring for a public-sector administrative job. Doing the job requires a particular set of talents, just as with any job. In this sense, I’m grateful for the actual experience that Johnson and Weld have as governors. They have proven that they are adept at doing the seemingly impossible, which is actually cutting government, cutting regulations, cutting taxes, and so on. You don’t necessarily gain this experience as a legislator and you certainly don’t as an outside philosopher or blogger.

Watching this campaign in action has intensified my appreciation for what it means to actually have talent as a liberal “statesman,” for lack of a better term. My own views are far more radical than either Johnson or Weld. I would rather abolish than reform. For that matter, I’m completely convinced that society would be better off without any state apparatus at all.

Still, freedom is in peril right now and there is nothing about intellectual parlor games that contributes to bringing about a solution. There’s never been a better time to celebrate any change toward freedom, even if small, even if marginal.

Two years ago, I was attending a liberty-oriented event in New York. Johnson was speaking. I’ve always liked him personally but I wasn’t that interested in his talk because of the usual reasons: I thought of him as a moderate whereas I am more “hard core,” as they say. But I listened. After about 10 minutes, I began to relax. I realized that I didn’t actually disagree with any of his points. Then I listened from the point of view of someone who is not part of the liberty club but rather a regular citizen. It suddenly made sense to me why he speaks in terms of practicalities and common sense. At this event, I began to realize something very crucial: ours is a big world view and there are many ways of presenting it and many paths toward making a contribution to freeing the world.

And yes, I disagree with Gary on some issues. I don’t like the idea of a consumption tax, for example. I think he might have more firmly rallied around the idea of a freedom of association on matters of religion. There are a few other issues. No two libertarians in the world agree on everything. And certainly there are a million possible strategies for getting from here to there. This can’t be a test of support in politics.

And you know what? Gary doesn’t have to be doing this whole election thing. He is financially secure. He loves adventure spots. He has a happy life. There is every reason to avoid and generally eschew the frustrations of the public spotlight. And getting the Libertarian nomination is particularly contentious because you can anticipate that your so-called allies in the struggle are going to be your toughest critics and even your main detractors. Then of course you deal with the hectoring media, the ridiculing elites, the pests on the left and right, and so on. Who needs it?

Well, Gary decided to go ahead anyway. I admire him for it.

The Future

Is it possible that this ticket is building the Libertarian Party into a genuinely viable alternative in American politics? It is possible but not likely. The political system today is owned by the two major parties. As we’ve seen, even the debate commission is controlled by them. The structure of American democracy, with its winner-take-all structure, is forbidding to third parties.

However, a Libertarian Party can offer something of a counterweight to the corruptions and ideological bankruptcy of the two main parties. If nothing else, the LP can keep the idea of human liberty from disappearing completely from public affairs. In some ways, we see emerging here a something of a 19th-century model: Tory, Labor, and Liberal. In our own time, this is being replicated as right authoritarianism (Republicans), left revanchism (Democrats), and liberal libertarianism.

But in order for this to happen, there is a crucial element that must be present: votes.

During the last Republican nomination struggle, I spoke to a person high up in a campaign and mentioned how strangely missing the libertarian angle was from every campaign. This person responded quickly: “libertarians don’t vote. Everyone knows that. That’s why they don’t matter.”

Ouch. This year, I’m making a small contribution to changing that.

I’m voting.

Look at your state and look at the mainstream options out there for you. Is your vote going to matter, really? Do you really think there is that much at stake in whether Clinton or Trump wins? If not, consider adding your vote to a cause that could actually make a difference.

A free society is built by you and me, beginning in our own lives. The digital age has given us better tools for doing this than we've ever had before. Become a citizen of the real free world and help us spread the message of liberty. Join Liberty.me today.

Jeffrey Tucker is Chief Liberty Officer of Liberty.me, a subscription-based, action-focused social and publishing platform for the liberty minded. He is also distinguished fellow Foundation for Economic Education, executive editor of Laissez-Faire Books, research fellow Acton Institute, founder CryptoCurrency Conference, and author of six books. He is available for speaking and interviews via tucker@liberty.me.

The Economics of Life Itself : Beautiful Anarchy is the writing platform of Jeffrey Tucker, in which he covers economics, art, popular culture, and politics from a pro-liberty, anti-state point of view.

@marchella
Self-delusion is a powerful motivation. Strong desire can lead to people embracing illusions even when they know better. For instance, many people who come down with a mortal illness will return to a long discarded religion or fiercely follow quack cures because they want to believe there is a way to escape the inevitable.

Voting won’t give us liberty politically, but it might get out the word and get many more people engaged, part of whom will become full-fledged and involved radical libertarians, just as it happened with Ron Paul. So, I think Jeffrey is right.

But I tend to agree with Brad, Johnson is likely a very decent man but he is wholly unprepared, both on details and political skills. For the first time in my life I have followed blogs and forums of the LP, especially the radical caucus, and I tend to agree that the party should find somebody better. Not necessarily the other guys in Orlando (I liked them, but in truth, they were kind of weird, even for my standards), but other people in the movement, like Napolitano or Boaz. Hell, Jeffrey would have made a better choice as well, if he would have been interested.

@marchella
Yes, but for billions of people the most important and tenaciously held aspects of their lives are superstitions. Myths persist because people want to believe them not because they are true. Such madness is the human norm. That is not going to change in our lifetimes.

@marchella well, yes, you are right, but it seems to me you are agreeing with me, now. Everybody has the Internet now, and while Ron career has been exceptional in many ways, he is no Jesus, I think there are other libertarians that are recognizable, cogent, knowledgeable about the NAP and well prepared. So, if you consider that Ron Paul candidacy was positive for the movement, how can you say that any other candidacies would be useless, as you seem to imply in your first posts? Thanks

I disagree, we have the internet…people are connecting from all over the world that was never the case before. I think we are seeing some pretty amazing things from individuals that inspire others to act. @ccspencer

Yes, Ron Paul’s candidacy was positive in advancing the message of liberty, however what was learned? That the whole thing is rigged and to work within the system rather than creating other ways for people to decentralize outside the system is a big waste of time.

It’s like joining ISIS and changing the system from within. The best way to advance liberty is outside of the political machine.
@massimomazzone

I support every vote for Gary Johnson. I support every new LP member, too, especially when they all turn anarchist in a year just like we Ron Paul types did.
I also agree — though I don’t think I’ll bother showing up at any polls — that a stronger finish than expected will be useful for increasing attention to freedom ideas in the future. It doesn’t matter who the Prez is, it matters that people start realizing there are ways to actually thumb their nose to the elephantdonkeybeastthing.

So much of the LP are not libertarians that I frankly despise them. If they didn’t call themselves libertarians, fine. I’ve got no beef with Jill Stein. But having seen the clowns, idiots and leftist establishment shills that run the LP at all levels, I say a pox on them, these people are not libertarians and shouldn’t use the name.
Look at how these subhumans treated Augustus Invictus, I hope they get brain cancer.

@marchella if all the new baby LP recruits learn the system is rigged, they’ll probly just go anarchist, right? Aren’t too many “Ron Paul constitutionalists” left are there? Necessary awkward learning stage, this voting thing.

Voting does send a message – that politics matters. I once thought that mattered, sending a message. But I have thought about all of my votes, and all of my campaigns for office as a libertarian, and determined that my vote, and my campaign efforts, have never changed the outcome of any election for any issue or for any candidate.

The message that needs to be sent is that people are abandoning the religious-like belief that political power can be used to accomplish anything worthwile.

That message is best sent by not voting. And by ridiculing and exposing the follies of government, and the perfidy of those involved in it. Which is what the internet is accomplishing, in dramatic fashion.

If you can actually vote for less government, that is a vote I would cast. As in voting to legalize marijuana. Which in several states has resulted from successful citizen initiatives. Initiatives at least offer the possibility of achieving less government. And it can be worthwile to sue the government to overturn laws that make it criminal to effectively organize citizen initiatives. I did that a couple of times, and persuaded the Supreme Court to overturn state bans on paid petitioners. Paid petitioners have place marijuana legalization measures on the ballot in many states – in all states where it has been legalized, and in some where votes will be cast this year.

So, some political action may be worthwhile, as long as it can be limited to curtailing state power. Voting for candidates – I just don’t see that as a rational act.

The idea that all sex is for procreation only leaves no room for ‘sport sex’ at all. Given that pregnancy only results from sexual intercourse about one time in twenty,… having an unwanted pregnancy seems more like bad luck than a likely outcome. Even responsible use of contraceptions will occasionally result in an unwanted pregnancy.

To be very blunt,… without having access to abortions, there is no way women can achieve sexual egalitarianism with men, since women, and only women, face the risk of having an unwanted pregnancy.

While I believe it is wrong to abort an unwanted child in an absolute ‘Cosmic Sense’,… in the case of abortion I ask who gets to decide for another person what happens with that person’s own body. Unless the state can also outlaw the possession and use of oral abortifacients, and the state is willing to investigate all miscarriages as possible homicides,… I don’t see what can practically be done. Making abortions illegal doesn’t eliminate abortions,… it simply means women with have to deal with criminals in order to get them,… at higher cost and greater risk.

All this being said,… I still favor the federal legislatures and courts removing themselves from all jurisdiction over abortion, and returning this matter back to the states, where all other criminal law is already handled. Treating the 14th Amendment as an absolute override of the 10th Amendment is not politically practicable.

On the other side of this issue,… if a left/progressive believes it is wrong to impose the unchosen altruistic duty of carrying an unwanted child for nine months and to then give birth to a child that the mother may put up for adoption, and to thereafter have no further responsibilty for,… how is it EVER correct to impose an other unchosen altruistic duty WHATSOEVER upon anyone?

@ ” I believe in each of us practicing ruling ourselves, and I would advise that each of us be well satisfied if we can rule our own life well.” Ah, so you’re a voluntaryist. Me too. http://voluntaryist.com/

The fetus is genetically distinct from the mother. It is most emphatically NOT proporietary use. Pregancy is a reasonable expectation of sexual activity. If you do not accept this you are in conflict basic biology and science.

@ Justin Hale. With relatively few exceptions (rape), it is the pregnant woman who grants the fetus “proprietary use,” as you call it, of her womb in the first place, so her “enslavement,” as you call it, is begun voluntary. Whether the fetus is her master or her slave, killing another person is nonetheless murder.

Big picture, win or lose, voting is a call on record at any one point in time, of the collective consciousness of our own selfs. Minimally, the result represents our intellectual state of condition at any one point in time.

As scary as it may be…Hillary and Trump are its manifestations. You’re looking right at the state of America’s intellectual condition. Scary isn’t it?

Big picture, voting is the intellectual attempt (civilized attempt) to “spontaneously organize”, and part of the same biological process (by the same reason) there is spontaneous order everywhere. It is no different, that is the basis of our own argument for free markets (invisible hand…)

Voting is, intellectually, the “right” thing to do, in the long evolution of man ~ from animal and brute force to civilized beings. We have at least seemed to have successfully moved along the evolutionary path from outright brute force, to intellectual force by majority rule…to then intellectual dabblings in individual/natural rights here and there, that found to be beyond majority rule, but have been ebbing and flowing over time. We seem to ebbing at this moment in time back to brute force.

The thing with Gary Johnson is this ~ while at first glance the big uptick to 6% for the libertarian party may seem great news, it has to be seen in context, to see the big uptick to “liberty” it is not. Because it’s not from people running toward liberty. It is from people running away from everything else.

You have to consider that with Hillary and Trump at 60%+ negative ratings, the worst in history (yea only 60?), and with very little other options, Libertarians should easily have 20-30% market share. Sorry folks, they are not running toward liberty. Most still have not learned their lesson.

Even so, if Gary Johnson is seen as the representation of liberty and individual rights that people are running towards…then we still have a long road ahead. The larger problem is that freedom and liberty are understood to be only a matter of opinion…and not of an organizational necessity.

Meaning, there is no other answer for the problems of mankind…and never will be.

Lee, much to be commended in you comment, but I must take issue with this: “We have at least seemed to have successfully moved along the evolutionary path from outright brute force, to intellectual force by majority rule.” I don’t think so. The rule of law we embrace depends on the use of brute force–viz., police and military powers–to enforce the enforce the rules. Our income and employment taxes are only collected by means of force or threat thereof. A large percent of our fellow Americans are in prison by virtue of our laws–by force. Police are given authority to use all necessary force and violence to see that our incomprehensible volume of laws are obeyed. We rattle our sabres and loose murderous weapons to make foreigners obey our dictates. Majority rule is not intellectual. At least here in America it is brute force.

Bravo! Jeffrey will vote this year! It does not matter for whom we vote, only that we vote for a third party candidate, (if all the votes actually get all counted, should a contest be close) and increase the numbers of alternative voices. Only then will we have a chance to get rid of the source of our individual and collective enslavement by the power mongers in Washington and the source of their power -the 16th and 17th Amendment and the Federal Reserve!
All were introduced and passed in 1913. Was that a coincidence!?

@justinhale Justin, in the first place, I said “relatively few exceptions,” because I can imagine others situations wherein the woman had not wanted to become pregnant, but in the case of an adult of sound mind, the possibility of pregnancy even with contraception is sufficient reason from me to say the woman opened the door to allow the fetus in, and ought not kill he guest.

You also misread me. I did not say that abortion in the case of rape was not wrong. I was simply refuting your argument by pointing out the error–as I see it–in the logic of your analogy. It is wrong to kill another human being–period. But please keep in mind, Justin, I am a voluntaryist opposed to the state and the so-called “rule of law.” When I say abortion is wrong because it involves killing another person, I am fully aware of the fact that neither pregnancy nor abortion are situation that can or should be addressed by legislation since I don’t believe in legislation. As a voluntaryist, I oppose outLAWing abortion. Abortion, like anything and everything else on this earth, is not something a state should be involved in. Rather, there should be no state!

As for you asserting a truly stupid opinion of SCOTUS regarding what a fetus is or isn’t, SCOTUS long ago demonstrated its total incompetence to ever rule on such matters when it determined the man Dred Scott was really just property. Oy vey!

Justin, I don’t believe violence has any place in the conduct of (my) human affairs. Your hypothetical situation–the only way to stop them–is outside the realm of reality. In the real world there are always alternatives. See Spencer MacCallum’s esssay. “A Skeptic’s View of One’s Right to Defensive Force.” Would that all libertarians would read it. http://voluntaryist.com/backissues/169.pdf

If we want an effective choice, we must change the voting paradigm from the broken, one voter, one vote, ‘first past the post’ paradigm, to either http://rangevoting.org and/or http://www.fairvote.org/instant-runoff-voting# . With the present system, we are all so trapped into stopping the worse evil, over the lesser evil, that there is never an opportunity to vote for what we ACTUALLY WANT! With the alternative voting systems offered, one can vote for what one actually believes in, without sacrificing the opportunity to block the greatest evil that you fear most. Voting for Hope rather than out of fear! Sounds fairly obvious to me.

Someone recently reminded me that we would also have to dump the electoral college where all the votes in a state go for only one candidate. Good Point! And this is all doable,… once a conversation is started,… as I am trying to do here. Right now, the American voter is terrified. Everyone uses their vote to block, and rarely to advance. To the public, this is a major flaw. To the establishment, this is a major virtue. Let the Tax Livestock moo all they want,… eventually all the cattle are lead down the same chute.

I am one of those wacky people who believe people own themselves. That the right to be left alone is pretty much an absolute. That people should think and take action that serves their own self interest while respecting other people’s similar boundaries. For this I am often called an elitist. Rather than rule by Philosopher Kings (which IS elitist), I believe in each of us practicing ruling ourselves, and I would advise that each of us be well satisfied if we can rule our own life well.

“I am an advocate for anarchy, and in opposition to chaos, because I advocate replacing all coercively imposed ‘law’ with individually, voluntarily, created ‘law’.” Rules without Rulers. In most every context, a coercively imposed contract is not considered legally binding at all,… with the state itself as the universally recognized exception to common morality in the name of preserving morality. As to the means,… so go the ends. I am a radical for the premise that respect flows from admiration rather than from fear.

I also strongly believe that the Non-Aggression Principle necessarily implies as a corollary that there can exist “No Sovereign Immunity” at all for the NAP to stand. It has consistently been my experience that while most uninitiated folks regard NAP as sweet, quaint, and naive, when introduced, in combination with NSI, it actually makes practical sense to them for the first time. You might try starting political discussions with NSI rather than NAP and see the results for yourself. What would most people give to live in a world where the Nuremberg defense is no longer considered credible at all?

I am a libertarian, and as such I believe no human being has any unchosen duties except that of not forcing people to do anything,… and being liable for whatever harm you cause to others. That’s it!

Some Political Maxims to consider….
1) So long as there is free will,… there will always be evil,… always.

2) Every decision making process makes mistakes occasionally.

3) Is it not probable that the maximum expression of good must always become evil, and that the minimum expression of evil is our best attainable good?

4) The basic political question is do we decide for ourselves,… or do elite philosopher kings decide for everyone?

5) The most fundamental metaphysical economic question you have to ask and answer for yourself is the question… is wealth something that can be created,… or can it merely be redistributed? There is no more basic, life or death decision you have to make in your entire life,… literally.

Here are two perspectives for the voting skeptics.
1) Is there any negative outcome that can occur by virtue of Gary Johnson winning more votes? Sure, odds are it won’t help anything. But is there any possible situation where it hurts something?
2) This is for those who think voting is immoral. Usually the two main candidates will both make things worse, and the choice is who will do the least damage. Suppose a candidate would be a net improvement from where things stand today. For example, someone who wants to reduce (but not eliminate) taxes and abolish the IRS with a consumption tax is immoral because he’s advocating for theft, but he’s advocating for a less immoral theft than we currently have. How is it immoral to vote for someone who will make things less immoral than they currently are?

It matters not that I do not matter. Not when the “mattering” comes from a “high-up-Republicrat” And I care not whether or not you choose to vote — correct that: I wish you would change your mind. But it is your choice.

My friend, Mark, said it best:

Working within the system
means to become a part of the system.
When you go into the voting booth,
the only meaningful significance
that your action will have
is to show that one more person
supports the state.

When one votes for a candidate he approves robbery and aggression, whether he likes it (aggression) or not, unless the candidate credibly promises and keeps his word not to participate in any state activity instead doing what he can to dismantle it, starting with immediate cancellation of all executive orders and other legislation, disbanding departments; he would need to refuse to get paid out of stolen funds etc. Otherwise he will facilitate evil thus committing evil and those who voted for him would have approved it, which is not right.

The “lesser evil” argument does not work because evil is in the nature of the action itself, not in comparison with alternative hypothetical outcome. Otherwise 2 criminal gangs can always easily make good people serve them in perpetuity by taking turns promising to be slightly less aggressive than the other group (steadily increasing the level of aggression with every successive election). If memory serves some nazis tried to use the argument: they worked in concentration camps because others in their place would have been more brutal.

State is a criminal organisation and approving its leaders to lead and preside over criminal activity is a very unsafe action.

This was an interesting article, Jeff. Actually, it was a good article — inversely, perhaps — in that it did elicit a large number of comments. I gauge the worth of an essay, not in terms of whether I agree with the premise (in this case I disagree vehemently with the premise), but the activity it generates within the comment section.

Was going to attempt rather of a study — to count up the total comments and find a “yea vs nay” ratio — but the discussion classically became sidetracked by an abortion squabble, making my little project impracticable. I’m going to say (unscientifically and perhaps prejudicially) that the “nays” had it by a goodly margin. Precious few appear to agree with you — that you should carry out your plans to engage in advancing the political game of monopoly force.

Voting is a waste of time, Johnson won’t win, the Deep State runs the government, Johnson is a moron and not a libertarian, Bill Weld is establishment Republican trash and ought to be deported or shot.

“…The political system today is owned
by the two major parties. As we’ve seen,
even the debate commission is controlled
by them. The structure of American democracy,
with its winner-take-all structure, is forbidding
to third parties…”

Not only do you “not matter” (due to your being a Libertarian [note upper case “L”, although I think your Republicrat friend “high up” in some “campaign” could care less about that]); but your “vote” will not matter — so our little disagreement here is pointless.

However, if you honestly believe what you wrote (quoted above) I seriously question your sincerity — knowing that a “vote” for Johnson will effect an additional “vote” in favor of Clinton. On the other hand, if you truly believe “…my vote can count for something in the general election…” — if you are sincere in making that statement; then you’re still stuck in “the-system”, and anything I say will be of no avail. Sam